Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
SANKARANARAYANAN Namboodirippad,(died)) S/o.narayanan NAMBOODIRIPPAD – Appellant
Versus
JOY S/o. VADAKKE MOORIYIL JOSEPH – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The learned Counsel for the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 reported that he relinquished vakalath for his parties. Accordingly, as per Order dated 16.01.2025 the Registry was directed to issue notice to the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 by speed post. Notice to the said party is returned with the endorsement unclaimed. It is seen that in RSA No.351/2012 balance court fee is also not paid. Accordingly, R.S.A.No.1489/2011 and RSA No.351/2012 are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. RSA No.1489/2011, 351/2012 and RSA No.1098/2011 arise from two suits- OS No. 341/1998 and 554/2002 which are disposed by the Trial Court by a common judgment along with counter claim in O.S No.341/1998. As per the common judgment of the Trial Court, the suits were dismissed and the counterclaim raised by the 1st defendant was allowed. The plaintiff in the suit filed appeals before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgments and decrees in both the suits and in the counterclaim. The First Appellate Court dismissed the challenge against the judgments and decrees in th
Possession must be proven to claim a permanent prohibitory injunction, and failure to establish title or pay requisite court fees results in dismissal of claims.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies equally on both parties, and proper documentation is essential to establish title and rights over the disputed property.
A suit for injunction is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration when the plaintiff is in possession and the title is not under dispute or a cloud.
The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case of possession and ownership, admissibility of documents and admissions, and the principles of balance of convenience and irre....
The validity of property grants cannot be dismissed solely based on the date of issuance, emphasizing the presumption of truth in revenue records until proven otherwise.
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot claim injunction against the true owner without lawful possession and title.
In title suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title, even if defendants do not contest; mere possession is insufficient for a declaration of title.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
